Tigers in QBs

[Michael Emrys]

Other than that, it's silly and unrealistic because the enemy is bunched up in a small setup zone that is known to you and you can destroy most of his forces on the first turn.

How do you know where the defender's set up zone is unless you've played on that map as the defender? He may have many options spread all over his end of the map. Picking a good spot on which to drop an opening turn barrage is a guessing game, sometimes obvious sometimes not. But there's a chance you might be wasting all that nice artillery.

Michael

[eltorrente]

How do you know where the defender's set up zone is unless you've played on that map as the defender? He may have many options spread all over his end of the map. Picking a good spot on which to drop an opening turn barrage is a guessing game, sometimes obvious sometimes not. But there's a chance you might be wasting all that nice artillery.

Michael

EXACTLY! Which is why it's perfectly fine and not "gamey" for the attacker to bomb the defender first turn. The defender isn't bunched up in a small zone in the opposite corner out in the open. It takes planning and is a guessing game to figure out where the defender might be setup. You could bombard him and not come anywhere close to where he actually is.

[Michael Emrys]

EXACTLY! Which is why it's perfectly fine and not "gamey" for the attacker to bomb the defender first turn. The defender isn't bunched up in a small zone in the opposite corner out in the open. It takes planning and is a guessing game to figure out where the defender might be setup. You could bombard him and not come anywhere close to where he actually is.

Sorry, for every place the word 'defender' appears in my post, I should have written 'attacker'. Everything else remains the same.

Michael

[ZPB II]

Right, I'm still on the quest for answers. Why can Joe punch Bob, but Bob isn't allowed to punch back?

Airplanes. They can be given enormous area targets. Player A buys Tigers. Player B knows this and buys 3 strafing runs per Tiger. Player B plots the airstrikes for turn 1 and targets them all over player A's side of the map.

It doesn't matter if it's a meeting engagement or an assault, the planes will still find their targets regardless of the size of the setup zone. Will Player A still cry foul about his opponent being gamey and attempt to gain moral high ground?

[eltorrente]

Sorry, for every place the word 'defender' appears in my post, I should have written 'attacker'. Everything else remains the same.

Michael

I think most of the time that this issue comes up is in a QB ME. Your setup zone is the opposite of your opponents, of course. You could hit that zone really hard, plus a road or choke point heading out of the zone, and the game is decided first turn.

If you guys want to play that way, that's fine, and it's totally "legal" because the game allows it to happen.

I play matches mostly on TheBlitz, where it is a rule that you can't do that. When I play non-ladder games there or with my friends, we also don't do that - simply because we want to decide the battle on the field in an actual fight and not decide it on the first turn.

[ZPB II]

My point is, how is buying Tigers in CMFI not deciding the battle on the first turn?

Yes, it's not an automatic win. But neither is prebattle artillery. But the idea behind them definitely is the same. Win the battle before it starts and don't give your opponent a chance.

Tigers can bog or suffer system damage. Artillery can miss, hit your own troops or be completely ineffective.

[Erwin]

This problem is mitigated as scenarios get larger and maneuver becomes more important - just like in RL.

[eltorrente]

I think maybe the rarity cost should simply be higher for Tigers.

As it is now, in a large battle, you can buy 4 Tigers with standard rarity, and 8 Tigers in a Huge battle.

Since they were so rare, maybe they should be more expensive in rarity points. If you want to play with a bunch of them, then the rarity setting could simply be set to "none", which would denote an unrealistic force and be agreed upon by both players before the battle.

[sburke]

This whole discussion got me thinking... I used to play a hundreds of CMx1 games as TCP/IP. I would hang out at the CMHQ chat and stalk new prey. I had all the optimal force buys thought out for all different time periods. I always bought the cheesiest possible units available and used all the underhanded and gamey tactics in the book. I was 15 and I was pwning n00bs three to four times my age. Rush the objectives on turn 1 and send blobs of M8 HMCs hugging the map edge racing forward. Good times.

rotflmao. Karma is gonna have you facing a gang of 12 year olds doing the same thing to you when you are sitting comfortably in retirement having just read some incredible small unit description and trying to find an opponent interested in the same experience. I pity you my friend, those youngters can be sadistic and persistent.

[Rocky Balboa]

I believe (of course you would have to ask BF to confirm this) the 1st turn bombardment rule was added to the game to give the attacking player the ability to bombard what he believes is the defenders position prior to an attack or to prep and objective area prior to an attack. This is of course necessary because the attacker normally has the initiative in this situation and it is assumed he has done some reconnaissance of the area.

Allowing the defender to do the same is IMO contrary to the spirit in which this rule was made, it was never meant for the defender to be able to bombard the attacker on turn 1 regardless of whether he guesses correctly or not.

I think the OP was asking for a similar clarification concerning the purchase of tigers and IMO the two issues aren't the same. The purchase of tigers is within the spirit of the game, so they should be allowed however, additional ladder rules can be put in place to discourage the behavior.

[theblitz]

My point is, how is buying Tigers in CMFI not deciding the battle on the first turn?

Yes, it's not an automatic win. But neither is prebattle artillery. But the idea behind them definitely is the same. Win the battle before it starts and don't give your opponent a chance.

Tigers can bog or suffer system damage. Artillery can miss, hit your own troops or be completely ineffective.

You said it yourself. Tigers can bog or suffer damage. Tigers can be attacked by planes. If you're not careful enough your opponent might sneak some bazookas in your tiger's rear or tow an AT gun in a side ambush position. Having Tigers doesn't guarantee victory,but gives you a very,very nice edge. All in one, having tigers on the battlefield is historically accurate,although it will result in an unbalanced game.

Dropping arty on your opponent's setup zone pretty much guarantees you'll win.If i know you'll bombard my setup zone i'll do the same and the game will be over in less than 3 turns with the winner decided by sheer luck. Pre-planned strikes like this aren't historically accurate,because no battalion in real life would start it's attack from a 20x20m zone. Nor would the enemy know the exact moment and the exact place from where the attack would begin.

[Sergei]

I think maybe the rarity cost should simply be higher for Tigers.

As it is now, in a large battle, you can buy 4 Tigers with standard rarity, and 8 Tigers in a Huge battle.

Since they were so rare, maybe they should be more expensive in rarity points. If you want to play with a bunch of them, then the rarity setting could simply be set to "none", which would denote an unrealistic force and be agreed upon by both players before the battle.

In this case, perhaps. But overall I don't think that rarity is a good thing. If you want a FAIR game, then the only factor should be the relative abilities of the hardware, not how common they were. German Panthers were more common in Normandy than the Allied AFVs that could realistically deal with them. Clearly the rarity of equipment is a poor metric there. Or if you want to compare the numbers of Panthers vs. the numbers of Shermans then the German player will likely get no tanks at all. In either case it's unlikely to result in an even match.

It's not very realistic either. You would be more likely to find a platoon of Tigers than one Tiger, one StuG III and one PzKpfw III.

[Sergei]

You said it yourself. Tigers can bog or suffer damage. Tigers can be attacked by planes. If you're not careful enough your opponent might sneak some bazookas in your tiger's rear or tow an AT gun in a side ambush position. Having Tigers doesn't guarantee victory,but gives you a very,very nice edge. All in one, having tigers on the battlefield is historically accurate,although it will result in an unbalanced game.

Shouldn't you two be slugging this out in game? Talk is cheap, PBEM or TCP/IP is... also cheap. But I think there is a lesson to be learned there.

[ZPB II]

I'm still not buying into all this spin.

It seems like everything's turned upside down and that the poor Tiger is so vulnerable and needs to be pitied. That people who frequently use Tigers in quick battles should be lauded as heroes willing to gamble it all in a blaze of glory, not just soothing their ego with a cheap win. Those bazookas and ATGs just waiting to bum-rush them kittens. I would love to see some statistics. Run a battle with a Coy + 2x Plt of Shermans vs. a Coy + Plt of Tigers a couple of hundred times and see how it goes.

Also, I'm firmly under the impression that it was very hard to conceal the movement of entire companies and battalions. Jump-off points were frequently under observation and targeted by artillery. If my assumption is wrong, I will humbly apologize.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's not very realistic either. You would be more likely to find a platoon of Tigers than one Tiger, one StuG III and one PzKpfw III.

For at least a decade now -- going back to before the CMBB release -- I have been advocating a rarity system based on availability rather than on price. As it stands unrealistically jacking up the rarity isn't an answer since you will almost always be able to buy at least 1.

I think the answers for this issue have already been said. You just have to pick which one you prefer:

1. 155m or larger artillery

2. Fighter-bombers. Remember, no AA in CMx2! ( :mad: )

3. Gentleman's agreement not to buy them.

4. Accept that they were a PITA in real life too and deal with it.

[MikeyD]

You would be more likely to find a platoon of Tigers than one Tiger...

Sicily seems to be a special case because Tiger numbers collapsed almost immediately and there was no means of vehicle recovery on the Island. 10 of the 17 Tigers were lost the first three days of the campaign (mostly blown up by their own crews), another three lost by the 20th, another 3 broke down in the retreat and only one made it off the island. So the window of opportunity for doing platoon-size offensive actions is very small indeed. Then again, the window of opportunity for platoon size Renault R-35 actions isn't really much greater.

[JonS]

Sicily seems to be a special case because Tiger numbers collapsed almost immediately and there was no means of vehicle recovery on the Island. 10 of the 17 Tigers were lost the first three days of the campaign (mostly blown up by their own crews), another three lost by the 20th, another 3 broke down in the retreat and only one made it off the island.

The same is mostly true of the Tiger bns sent to Normandy, although at least there they did have recovery and repair options denied on Sicily. But even so, it's not unusual to find a whole battlaion of Tigers consisting of just a handful of runners after a day or two of continuous action. The numbers would recover during quiet periods, only to plummet again within days when the fighting next flared up.

The difference in Sicily is the low total number, and that after two days the Germans were steadily pulling back towards Messina. So any losses - for any reason - tended to be significant and permanent.

[Michael Emrys]

Also, I'm firmly under the impression that it was very hard to conceal the movement of entire companies and battalions. Jump-off points were frequently under observation and targeted by artillery. If my assumption is wrong, I will humbly apologize.

That's sort of a point that I was about to make, except for the word 'frequently'. I think it happened sometimes, and often enough that players should be able to do the same, but not nearly often enough to justify saying that it occurred frequently.

How to resolve this? A reciprocal gentleman's agreement not to buy über-kitties and use first turn bombardment of suspected set up zones. If a player refuses to make such an agreement, than the other player is free to do as he wishes. If a player makes such an agreement and cheats on it, then he should be treated like any other kind of cheater.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

This whole discussion got me thinking... I used to play a hundreds of CMx1 games as TCP/IP. I would hang out at the CMHQ chat and stalk new prey. I had all the optimal force buys thought out for all different time periods. <snip>

Now, I don't think I've ever done the same thing in CMx2. I always buy the rarer and more obscure stuff that just isn't so good. Halftracks with 37mm pop guns, Stugs in the bocage, Panzer IVs and now IIIs. Infantry guns on the offense.<snip>

Hummm I wonder if the n00bs you were beating were just more mature - it sounds like you have turned into one. Oh that sounded like an insult - not my intention. What I mean is, you have grown up and want grown up fun not just to smash the other guy in the face over and over. Which you clearly thought was fun when you were 15:D

You said it yourself. Tigers can bog or suffer damage. <snip>

Having Tigers doesn't guarantee victory,but gives you a very,very nice edge. <snip>

Yeah, they are tough to deal with. I have faced tigers several times - mostly in ladder games. As long as I do not face them every game I am OK with that - I like the challenge. At least in CMBN you have options that can deal with them (M10, Achillies, Firefly, 76 Shermans). Even with all that they are still a real challenge. I am not sure in CMFI how I'll feel facing a Tiger. I am glad you brought it up.

I have a game going right now where it was 2 Tigers and 2 PzIVs vs 5 Shermans (2 76mm) and 2 M10s. Not a match up I would like to bet on. So far I am not doing too badly but the number of threats I have left is dropping...

On the flip side I had one ladder game where I KO'ed one of the guys 2 Tigers at the cost of 7 Sermans (I took various other tanks of his down too) and my opponent Rage quite complaining that CMBN was broken because everyone was buying too much armor (I had a battalion of infantry too BTW). I had to laugh at that considering I was down to only three Shermans and a couple of M10s I was feeling like there was no way I could get that other Tiger before being picked apart.

I have only bought Tigers once - 14 Royal Tigers for one battle. Yes, it was a huge battle - the dry run for the 20 000 point battle I am writing my DAR for. BORING, I'll say it again BORING. The only downside of those guys was there were bridges they could not cross and streets they could not go down. Other than that there were unstoppable. I lost one to an Achilles but absolutely shredded my opponent's Churchills. It was like they weren't even there.

[sburke]

I have only bought Tigers once - 14 Royal Tigers for one battle. Yes, it was a huge battle - the dry run for the 20 000 point battle I am writing my DAR for. BORING, I'll say it again BORING. The only downside of those guys was there were bridges they could not cross and streets they could not go down. Other than that there were unstoppable. I lost one to an Achilles but absolutely shredded my opponent's Churchills. It was like they weren't even there.

And that is likely totally accurate IF the Germans were able to assemble such a force and not find out the Allies may not have Tigers, but had their own aces in the hole - artillery and aircraft. The issue we run into is CM depicts the fight at the sharp end, but the deployment of units like the Royal Tiger were tied to a logistics tail that mostly precluded them being the force they might have been otherwise. So we can create fictional scenarios that show might have beens, but the reality is their deployment was a much more complicated issue and rarely did they influence events to the extent they might in a CM battle. Hell look at KG Pieper, how useful did the KT end up being there?

Regarding the OPs concern, it really comes down to what you and your opponent want to get out of the game. Some people really love using the uber toys and they are interesting. However they also skew what you get to a very very fictional game. If you are in to that then enjoy. If you aren't then I'd suggest maybe you need to either discuss prior what you enjoy in the game with your opponent or find new ones. There is no right or wrong, just a difference in what you play the game for.

[sburke]

As i see it the tigers are pretty much invulnerable to everything in the allied inventory and this means we'll see a lot of them in QBs

What tactics would you employ to counter the big cats? Or perhaps an agreement between the players that no tigers should be purchased is the best 'counter-measure'?

I lost 2 tigers to damned PBI but they had both been immobilized after repeated confrontations with Churchills.

As to their purchase or not, that is strictly up to you and your opponent. If they get them all the time, I'd be pretty bored. Even if I found counter measures that routinely allowed me to deal with them, it is still boring. I think in all my PBEMs I have had tigers once and while they are interesting I would not want them on a regular basis. There is far too much else to enjoy about this game than a constant "how do I kill the Tiger" challenge.

[John Kettler]

I think using airpower w/o any means of defending against it is every bit as gamey, if not worse, than using Tigers. Why? Tigers have to work within ground level LOS constraints, where the airpower has no such restrictions. There is no chance of ground clobber (the dread cumulogranitus cloud) that I'm aware of, no "golden bullet" to worry about, no opposition fighter aircraft, and the list goes on. In CMx1 those subjected to air attack could at least shoot back, and why that's not in CMBN or CMFI is simply beyond me.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

I think using airpower w/o any means of defending against it is every bit as gamey, if not worse, than using Tigers. Why? Tigers have to work within ground level LOS constraints, where the airpower has no such restrictions. There is no chance of ground clobber (the dread cumulogranitus cloud) that I'm aware of, no "golden bullet" to worry about, no opposition fighter aircraft, and the list goes on. In CMx1 those subjected to air attack could at least shoot back, and why that's not in CMBN or CMFI is simply beyond me.

Regards,

John Kettler

I'd suggest a search in the archive then as it has been covered extensively. BF has their reasons, whether you agree with em is a different question but it isn't like they haven't been stated. If you just peruse the archive threads from just after CMBN release you are bound to hit a few threads.

[A Canadian Cat]

I lost 2 tigers to damned PBI

Who or what is a PBI?

[sburke]

Who or what is a PBI?

Poor Bloody Infantry